During the Uva provincial council election last month the President Rajapaksa thanked the visiting Chinese President for having bestowed economic assistance on the country and reduced the price of petrol and electricity. This time there was no Chinese President to share the credit with. But President Mahinda Rajapaksa directed that the price of cooking gas should be reduced. The government is aware that economic considerations loom large in the minds of the majority of the electorate. During his ongoing visit to Jaffna and the Northern Province, the President is making major offerings to the people, of land, jobs and subsidized motor cycles, to mention but a few. Despite the high level of economic growth reported by the government, economic hardship badly affects the life of the masses of the people. If the economic concessions at the Uva elections were a precedent, the package of economic benefits to the electorate at this time points to imminent elections.

It is said that astrologers have warned the President that his star is on the wane and will wane faster after March of next year. This is not a particularly stellar prediction. Most political commentators in media and general life are in agreement that the government’s popularity is on the decline, which is not surprising as the Rajapaksa-led government has been in office for nearly ten years. The results of the Uva Provincial Council election were a confirmation of the fall in popularity. Whether it is written in the stars or not, the sooner a presidential election is held the better it will be for the government. This makes early January, which is the earliest in which an election can be held, the most likely time. However, there is one serious problem that arises, and that is the pre-planned and agreed upon visit by Pope Francis to Sri Lanka for which the Catholic Church has been making preparations.

It would be a major disappointment to the Catholic community if the visit does not go ahead due to the government’s electoral compulsions, and this can be politically disadvantageous to the government. There is reportedly a one month window before and after elections that the Vatican wants, so that a papal visit does not figure in national political discourse. If the government is mindful of this concern then the next earliest it can have the elections are in March. While any delay in holding the elections would tend to be unfavorable to the government on account of its declining popularity, there is an important factor that can come into play to boost the government’s electoral prospects. This is the March session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva at which the report of the UN investigative team into war crimes in Sri Lanka will be taken up.

Nationalistic Mobilisation

The holding of a presidential election in the looming shadow of the UNHRC meeting in Geneva can become a plus point of electoral mobilization to the government. The UN investigation has been described by the government as an international conspiracy against itself and the unity of the country. Many if not most of the majority Sinhalese population will subscribe to this notion. Therefore it a presidential election campaign is held just before the outcome of the UNHRC meeting in Geneva is finalized, and with an axe threatening to fall upon the government, it will be able to mobilize the nationalism of the people to its electoral advantage. The question once again, as it has been in all of the post-war elections, is whether nationalism will get priority over those other issues at which the government is at a disadvantage.

The close electoral contest that the government experienced at the Uva elections would alert it to the fact that economic concessions by themselves will not suffice to address the concerns of the electorate. It may therefore be more than a mere coincidence that the President’s announcement of a reduction in the price of cooking gas came parallel with an anti-NGO poster campaign. On the same day that the President’s concession to the economic problems faced by the people was announced, posters appeared on the streets of major towns asking “Why is the NGO Gang afraid of the President?” As the answer was not provided for in the posters, it can reasonably be surmised that these posters will be followed in the succeeding days by others which will provide answers.

The attack on NGOs reflects the concerns of the government leadership. With the passage of more than five years since the end of the war the government is finding it increasingly difficult to justify the government’s approach to governance on the basis of national security. One of the few sectors in society willing to challenge the government has been the NGO sector. Many of the top leaders of the government have had close associations with the NGOs. Some were members of NGOs, either as volunteers or as staff. Others worked alongside NGOs in campaigning against previous governments. President Rajapaksa is well known for his abortive bid as an opposition parliamentarian to carry files of human rights cases to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva which was foiled by alert immigration officials. As in the past, with previous governments, the NGO sector continues to be willing to challenge the government.

Two Tracks

The government appears to be following a two track strategy in dealing with the NGOs. Many if not most NGOs do positive work at the community level which has given them credibility with the people and made them into opinion formers who can influence the way the people vote. In fact these community level NGO leaders have more credibility than the government’s own agents at the community level, such as Samurdhi coordinators, who act in politically partisan and non-transparent ways. The government’s first track, and the more constructive one, is to commence engaging in dialogue with the NGOs. The dialogue so far has been with a small group of NGOs and has led to a positive interaction which is still in its incipient stage. They have already raised issues of having to get prior approval from government authorities to do their work and also of government surveillance of their activities, which intimidates civil society participants and stymies the discussion of issues of governance and human rights.

On the other hand, the media has reported that the government is planning to amend the Voluntary Social Service Organisations (Registration and Supervision) Act under which most NGOs are registered. A final copy has now been passed by the Legal Draftsman and will shortly be submitted to Cabinet. It is reported that under the amendments, NGOs will have to register annually with the Secretariat or lose the right to receive foreign funds and conduct local monetary transactions. They will also have to submit reports and sign Memorandums of Understanding with the Government. According to the government’s NGO Secretariat, the government will allow two weeks for public observations once other routine procedures were completed. The draft has been discussed with relevant officials including those from the Ministries of Justice and Social Services, State Intelligence and the Central Bank. But it has not been discussed with the NGO sector. The NGO Secretariat is quoted as saying that “There is no need to ask the NGOs because this is a law that is being enacted in the interests of the country.”

Today there is uncertainty regarding the mandate civil society has in Sri Lanka. The government recently issued a circular which is ambiguously worded and is potentially highly restrictive. This circular appeared to be targeted at the advocacy and human rights NGOs, which work with high profile groups such as the media and the international community. There are currently two opinions within the NGO community. Some believe that NGOs need to engage with the government in order to create space for themselves to do their work. They also hold to the position that civil society organisations should not affiliate themselves to political parties, or the government of the day, and that they must remain independent. However, others believe that civil society needs to work together with the opposition and stand up against the government to achieve political change. It is this latter position that is serving to strengthen the government’s second track, which appears to be one of discrediting NGOs and driving them out of the public sphere during the election campaign period to begin with.

“…the truth won’t set us free until we develop the skills and the habit and the talent and the moral courage to use it.” – Margaret Heffernan (Dare to Disagree)[i]

First they came for pavement traders and unauthorised vendors. Hundreds of thousands lost their livelihoods.

Then they came for legally constituted small businesses. The first step was taken last year, when the UDA demolished shops on one side of Bastian Mawatha, Pettah. The owners were given scant notice (just 24 hours) and no alternate premises.

At least this gross abuse of power did not go unnoticed. The media was present; voices of concern were raised[ii].

Currently shops on the other side of Bastian Mawatha are being demolished. They too are legal structures, built by a previous administration and rented out to small-entrepreneurs. Familiar landmarks in Pettah, they sell a variety of goods, from telephones and handbags to apples and oranges.

The UDA seems to have developed a new procedure to get rid of inconvenient structures/people. No pre-warnings are given, probably to prevent organised resistance and legal action. Instead the UDA launches lightening operations, as if the victims are not rate-paying citizens but enemy-combatants.

The Rajapaksas are in a hurry. Much needs to be done, to turn parts of Pettah and Fort into the new gambling hub. Bastian Mawatha is located at the end of the designated gambling-zone. It must be spruced up, for the viewing pleasure of international gamblers who are expected to flock to this resplendent isle.

So the ordinary shops must go, even though it means destroying legitimate Lankan businesses and depriving tens of thousands of Lankan citizens of a livelihood.

Many of the victimised shop owners would have come from rural areas, most would have voted for the Rajapaksas at previous elections; all would have cooked milk-rice, lighted crackers and danced in the streets when the Eelam War ended, without sparing a thought for the civilian victims.

Now it is their turn to vanish from the public eye, to become non-victims.

The art of rendering human victims invisible was perfected in North-Eastern battle zones and ‘Welfare Villages’. Today that tried and tested method is being implemented in the heart of Colombo, with devastating success.

Unlike last year, the current demolitions are barely making news. When they do, the shops are dismissively – and apocryphally – described as unauthorised structures[iii].

That Rajapaksa construct, ‘Humanitarian Operation with zero-civilian-casualties’ turned all dead Tamils, including old people and babies, into Tigers, by definition. Similarly, the development drive of the Rajapaksas is turning all its victims to illegals and undesirables, who deserve neither consideration nor sympathy.

The unethical and illegal demolitions in Bastian Mawatha should have made the headlines and brought the opposition out in force.

Instead, there is near total silence and inaction, indicating how far the country has regressed, morally and ethically, under Rajapaksa tutelage. We have become more racist, more fanatical and more inhumane. Our country ends on our doorstep; what happens beyond that, even to those of the same ethnic/religious community, has become a matter of indifference.

When a policeman shot dead an unarmed teenager in the US city of Ferguson, mass protests erupted. Confronted by policemen armed as if for war, some demonstrators drew comparisons between themselves and the Gazans. Many Palestinians responded by tweeting practical advice to the Ferguson demonstrators[iv]. When an American social-media user objected to the Ferguson-Gaza comparison, another responded, “I don’t think anyone is trying to compare Ferguson to Gaza; the point is solidarity and justice”[v].

Indeed; or the absence of it, as in Sri Lanka.

Anyone going past Pettah can witness the demolitions, can see the former owners searching for pieces of their lost lives amongst the debris, can sense their pain and their despair.

But there is no anger at the injustice, no solidarity with the victims.

We gave the regime a free hand in the North/East in the name of patriotism. We are giving the regime a free hand in the South in the name of development.

Illegality and injustice are at the very heart of the Rajapaksa project. We must show solidarity with its victims not just because it is the right thing to do but also because it is the wise thing to do.

What is happening to them today can happen to anyone of us tomorrow.

The Absence of Solidarity

Last week, in Oakland, USA, a broad and varied coalition of activists, ranging from American labour unions to Palestinian solidarity organisations, prevented the unloading of an Israeli ship. That first successful boycott of Israeli shipping was made possible by two critical factors – solidarity and unity[vi].

The Opposition should have been out there in Bastian Mawatha, obstructing the illegal and unethical deeds of the UDA. Even if the demolitions could not be prevented, such resistance may have helped the opposition to win new supporters and make vitally necessary inroads into the Rajapaksa politico-electoral base.

The UNP of pre-1977 would have done precisely that. Every leading UNPer would have been there, identifying and fraternising with the victims. In stark contrast, Ranil Wickremesinghe, Sajith Premadasa and Karu Jayasuriya failed to pay the slightest heed to the Pettah demolitions.

This indifference is nothing new. For the last several years the UNP barely reacted as the Rajapaksas dismantled a vital component of the party’s electoral base in Colombo, through the mass-eviction of low-income dwellers. Colombo’s poor have been far more resistant to the Rajapaksa magic than any other population group outside of the North. The Rajapaksas failed repeatedly to make a clean sweep of Colombo because of the political astuteness of the city’s low-income earners. Incidentally, the Rajapaksas are evicting not just illegal-dwellers but also people who have been rate-paying and voting Colombians for decades, who live not in crumbling shanties but in lower-middle class houses[vii].

The Opposition’s failure to defend this critically important anti-Rajapaksa group is indicative of its real malaise – not insufficient patriotism but indifference to the victims of Rajapaksa rule. From the North to Colombo, many poor and powerless victims of Rajapaksa rule are being ignored by the opposition. The Opposition’s failure to react to Pettah-demolitions, with a national election just months away, is but one more manifestation of this strategic political failure.

The former shop-owners victimised by the Rajapaksas will go back to their home-villages bearing a message of not just a rapacious and repressive government but also a weak and inept opposition. Such messages will encourage electoral abstentions. And abstentions will help the Rajapaksas to win.

According to media reports, North-Eastern people are seeking escape from despair in alcoholism and addiction[viii]. The South too may head in a similar anti-social direction. The regime would encourage such tendencies. After all, resistance sprouts only where there is hope. Despair causes not political activism but crime.

Only a majority-minority coalition, which encompasses all Rajapaksa victims can defeat familial rule. Only an opposition willing and able to resist injustice in all its forms and manifestations can create such a winning-coalition.

Months away from a critical national election, such an opposition seems to be conspicuous by its absence.

“The true test of civilization is not the census, nor the size of cities, nor the crops – no, but the kind of man the country turns out.” ~Ralph Waldo Emerson, American essayist, philosopher and poet

Exaggerations of the truth are quite common in any human endeavor. When exaggerations are driven into fully-blown falsehoods, they tend to master the individual or society that willingly accepts the fallacy of falsehood as truth. It is a criminal act and when the casualty and society accept the criminal act in any way, shape or form, society’s will to survive diminishes and when it reaches a critical mass, it explodes, claiming everyone around as victims of the willing. By virtue of his or her silence and omnipotence, the victim becomes a helpless accomplice of the crime thereby facilitating the commission of falsehood and lies and even rape, larceny and murder. The vicious circle of human folly continues to turn, capturing every willing and unwilling observer into this web of sin. Society, as a result becomes a prisoner of itself, consuming its vital resources to nurture and nourish itself. The most tragic aspect of this process is that it is only the historians of a later day who would see the beginning, the midpoint and the end of the whole story.

The responsibility and duty of the Opposition is to educate and inform the voting public with vigor and strength. People don’t like to see softness in their leaders. That is why they elected JR Jayewardene with such a huge majority. They saw in him strength and vitality. Especially when confronted by a vigorous leader like the present President, empty rhetoric do not vibe.

What’s taking shape in Sri Lanka today is precariously close to the phenomenon described above. The ruling cabal is so deeply stuck in its own graveyard of falsehoods and the depth of it is unfathomable. Shrouded by a sinister veil of high-sounding slogans and shallow rhetoric, the regime and its unfeeling agents are disseminating totally bogus data on the economy, inflation, growth rate, employment (or unemployment) and per capita income etc. A government simply cannot fool the people about the economy. The economy of any country is not something extraterrestrial; one cannot separate the economy from its people. Every living person is subject to and part and parcel of the economy within which he or she exists and operates. Every breadwinner of every family would know whether the cost of living, which is intricately entwined with inflation, has gone up or down over the last twelve months. The prices of bread, dhal, rice, vegetables, fish, meat, dairy products, eggs and infant milk food cannot be divorced from the index of cost of living. Who on earth and living in Sri Lanka could say that the prices of these items have remained stable or gone down over the last one year?

However, there is another way in which one can maintain the Government’s assertion that the cost of living has not gone up or that the inflation rate has come down. That is by eliminating those essential items from the calculation which is used to measure cost of living or inflation. In the same way, unemployment rate could be understated by taking out those who leave unsatisfying jobs and enter the job market again. This is precisely what is being pontificated by those who have built a reputation around themselves as “master manipulators” of statistics and figures. The average villager is blissfully unaware of these statistics and accounting methods. He is totally oblivious to the Central Bank Reports and annual reports of the corporate sector. But his children and spouse feel hunger pangs and desire for new clothes; he also knows when the prices of green chilies and infant milk food go up. He might not have time for nor empathy with a schoolteacher who was humiliated by a local politico and he might not be interested in the university students protesting against some abstract demands, for his children are still too young to enter the university. But he is very much aware of the social and economic environment that he lives in.

It must yet be reiterated that a government simply cannot afford to be checkmated on this front. The front of politics is where half-truths and lies are the stock in trade, where the traders are mostly frauds and customers are idiots. The real tragedy manifests itself when the customers believe the outright lies and exaggerations of the traders and buy a lemon instead of a Rolls Royce that was originally promised. It is not one single customer or an individual that is fooled like this time after time. The entire community of customers or people is taken for a set of suckers and jokers who willingly capitulate to the merciless profession of falsehood-trading.

The Government is fully ready with its quota of lies and exaggerations; they are ready with their team well trained and practiced in the craft of delivering lies as sweet truths. No person or persons in the Opposition could seemingly match the regime’s team of liars. But if they, leaders of the Opposition, are willing to fight fire with fire- this does not mean that one has to fight lies with more lies, but in other words, douse the fires that the Government’s lies would cause and calling them what they in actual fact are in the most ruthless fashion, with no holds barred and naming and shaming those who lie, whatever echelon the liars may descend from, with a mindset that is riveted to winning against all odds, a mindset that would take no prisoners and carry on until each and every voter is reached and talked to, then there might be a chance, a fighting chance. But the Opposition must be prepared to sacrifice, every now and then; they must be ready to be taken into custody and they must be ready not to be soft on the crime of deceit and dishonesty. No victory was won on a bed of roses or petals of orchids. As Nietzsche said: “A society when it is tender and soft takes sides with those who harm it”.

The responsibility and duty of the Opposition is to educate and inform the voting public with vigor and strength. People don’t like to see softness in their leaders. That is why they elected JR Jayewardene with such a huge majority. They saw in him strength and vitality. Especially when confronted by a vigorous leader like the present President, empty rhetoric do not vibe. The people must see in the alternative leader the same strength of vibrancy and vitality if not more of that of the incumbent.

He or she must have the guts to call a lie a lie; he must have the stomach to suffer humiliation and insult with dignity and calmness; he must have the will to endure tremendous hardships and hard work yet wake up each morning with freshness of the morning dew and steadiness of petals that hold that dew. It is an uphill task. But it must be undertaken for the sake of the country, for the sake her people and for the sake of their history.

Am I asking for an imaginary persona? I don’t think so. There are ones among our midst who could deliver the goods. If they are not available among the usual suspects, then stop looking among the usual suspects; look elsewhere and one would find not one but many. One must feel the urgency, that quality which makes the good, great; that quality which stands erect among many a storm, unfettered and unruffled. For the sense of urgency demands that any other option is not acceptable. These lies must be put to a stop and we simply cannot be stupid and cowardly any more.

One named Gotabhaya Rajapaksa happens to enter Sri Lanka politics only after Mahinda Rajapaksa becomes president. Since leaving the military, for nearly one and a half decades, then he lived in the USA. He becomes a publicly known or powerful figure after his advent subsequent his sibling coming to power as president. With that he is appointed as the defence secretary – a post regarded as powerful- and he becomes the coordinator of the security forces in Eelam war IV that followed. He is the one who persuaded the president to agree in appointing General Fonseka, who can be regarded a key leader in the military victory, as the commander of the army, without retiring him. For whatever reason, the president has not been happy about Fonseka’ s appointment as army commander whereas he is the one who placated that disliking and got the president’s consent to give the job to Fonseka.

In addition, he performed an important role in conducting the war to a logical end despite the danger to himself. As the defence secretary was also the president’s brother, he was capable of providing logistics to the military generously and without delay. He was also the key person behind the massive propaganda launched in order to bestow a dignity upon the three armed forces. The military victory gave him a massive recognition and made him a hero. He became one of the major three heroes created by the war. Furthermore, while being a mere government official, he became the person with immense power second only to the president. With General Fonseka being removed from the scene, he became the most powerful person in the defence establishment. The gulf between the three forces commanders, IGP and him was not typical; the distance was as if between the sky and the earth. Just like the president, his other siblings Chamal and Basil can also be regarded as considerably seasoned in politics, Gotabhaya Rajapaksa was not a political animal. He was merely a military animal. He wanted to see everything from a military viewpoint.

After defeating rebellions

Taking care of Tamils who were turned into a conquered populace was also handed over to Gotabhaya who was rendered the status of a major war hero. It can be said that Gotabhaya’s military shadow has gradually affected not only the Tamil people of the north, but also the whole country.

Once an internal rebellion has been beaten, victorious security forces are not given the duty of controlling defeated rebels and their followers. This is an accepted convention.

In 71, Sirima Bandaranaike did not did not hand over the responsibility of taking care of 18,000 prisoners who either surrendered or captured, to the security forces that defeated those rebels. Instead, the task of taking care was delegated to the prisons department. As the department was short of staff to perform the duty, the prisons department had to recruit a large number of officers. Although temporary camps were established due to lack of space, those camps did not come under security forces but the prisons department.

Generally, security forces are brought out of their camps in a war situation or disaster situation. As soon as the war situation subsides, security forces should be sent back to their barracks in order to allow civilian rule. That is also an accepted convention.

The defeat of LTTE can be regarded not as the first time an internal rebellion was crushed; it was the third. During the second JVP rebellion, temporary military camps were established in many areas of the country. While the general public wanted to see the JVP rebellion crushed when it became severe, the manner it was suppressed was not to the liking the Sinhalese of the South. Instead, they opposed it. After the defeat of the LTTE war movement which can be regarded as a Tamil youth rebellion, the southern Sinhalese viewed the security forces as war heroes, even though the same military was not considered as war heroes by the Sinhalese of the south after crushing the second JVP uprising. Even the likes of Champika Ranawaka and Wimal Weeravansha who at present, happily describe security forces as war heroes, had only harsh criticism against the military during that period.

President Premadasa was aware that even the southern Sinhalese who were not sympathetic to the JVP rebellion were averse to security forces. That was the reason behind his decision to send security forces to barracks by removing temporary military camps in various places of the country as soon as the rebellion was defeated.

That principle is valid for the Northern Tamil people as well. It was not carried out in a similar manner after the defeat of the Northern Tamil rebellion because of Gotabhaya Rajapaksa. It could have been because he had a military vision instead of a political vision. Had Gotabhaya not been the defence secretary, even Mahinda Rajapaksa would have followed the concept of sending security forces to barracks rather than handing over the task of taking care of Tamil people after the defeat of the northern rebellion over to them, in a similar manner to PM Sirima Bandaranaike or President Premadasa. Even though President Rajapaksa interfered with the business of each and every one, he didn’t meddle in what Gotabhaya did. It could have been so not only because Gota was his favourite sibling, but also because the special role he undertook in the military victory at great risk. The president’s policy on Gotabhaya appears to be allowing him to carry on his action without any interference. This seems to have bestowed immense power on the defence secretary that does not come under anyone’s control. Even though Gotabhaya may not be having aspirations to overcome his brother, his attitude of analysing political developments through a military point of view, he has become the grave digger of not only his sibling’s but also the government’s political wellbeing.

Commemorating the dead

There was only one rebellion in the Tamil North. In the Sinhalese south there were two rebellions by the same movement. Parents and loved ones of those dead in the 71 rebellion commemorated the deceased. After the defeat of the second rebellion too, Parents and loved ones commemorated the deceased. A Mothers Front was formed in order to do this and at the time, Mahinda Rajapaksa was a strong supporter of that Front. Despite the pros and cons of what the deceased did, their loved ones have a right to commemorate them. In an unprecedented manner Gotabhaya Rajapaksa might have denied the Northern Tamil people the right to commemorate their dead because he owns a military heart instead of a political heart.

It seems that he doesn’t have any inkling of the socio political background of these rebellions. It seems that his military eye sees only the terrorist that lived within the rebels. He doesn’t see the socio economic factors that contributed to creating a terrorist. He even failed to understand that those defeated by himself were not an invading foreign army but sons and daughters of the country’s people.

Gotabhaya is also the person who did not allow the investigation of excesses during the war. Sri Lanka would have had the opportunity to rapidly move forward without hindrance from the international community if it conducted a fair internal investigation, punished the guilty and yet again granted an amnesty to all of them. In that sense, Gotabhaya Rajapaksa should be held responsible for denying that opportunity and pushing the country towards a crisis which cannot be resolved easily. It can be said that Elder Brother President’s policy of looking away while allowing his favourite younger brother to act in a capricious manner has pushed the country to utter chaos.

Excesses are unavoidable in any war. In the routing of the 71 rebellion too there were excesses. Among them the most discussed in international circles was the killing of beauty queen Somawathie Manamperi. PM Sirima Bandaranaike ordered an investigation and charged the accused military officers. Courts that heard the case handed out maximum punishments. It was not a betrayal of the military. It helped clear the army of the disgrace from that heinous crime.

Errors committed by Gotabhaya

Pushing the country to barracksification (term used by author) can be regarded as the worst thing that Gotabhaya Rajapaksa did to the country. Military officers were appointed to posts that should be held by civil administrators. Military officers were extensively appointed to the diplomatic service without even proper training. Education was militarised. In addition to forcing the country into barracksification, civil political institution system was distorted.

He is the one who introduced the hideous method of executing criminals extra judicially. It can be considered as a fascist process that goes against every globally accepted legal and democratic principle.

Officially and unofficially deploying security forces personnel for political tasks can be deemed as the gravest mistake committed by him. During the war, several organisations were engaged in demonstrations based on an anti-war policy. Although their behaviour in the time of a fierce war was wrong, the extra judicial violent policy applied in suppressing those movements cannot be regarded as even-handed at all. Some symbolically significant individuals were assassinated in a mysterious manner while others disappeared mysteriously. Several media institutions encountered brutal attacks. In some such ugly incidents it was clearly obvious of the use of people associated with the military.

Even after the war ended, that process was not terminated. Formally and informally a group associated with security forces were used to suppress protests on various issues in several places in the country. Some informed people associated with the government viewed this process not with approval but disgust. However, rather than mutter in secret they were afraid to make their opposition known.

Fostering extremists

Not stopping at breast feeding and nurturing certain extremist forces, the defence secretary provided protection for them. BBS can be regarded as the best example. Ven. Gnanasara’s boldness has more to do with the clout of the defence ministry rather than a natural thing. In the face of the Thero’s numerous performances security forces allowed him to act at will as they were all aware of the secretive relationship between the monk and the defence secretary. Even though a large number of government ministers and parliamentarians did not approve of the violent role the Thero was playing, all of them adhered to a hushed policy because of Gotabhaya’s shadow that prevailed upon him. Prominent Buddhist monks who did not endorse Ven. Gnanasara’s act kept silence as the connection between him and the defence secretary was no secret to them.

When the Halal issue emerged, prominent and respected Buddhist monks came forth to resolve the matter amicably. An organised movement got into action by phoning those monks and abusing them in filth. These monks were in such a state of shock from this strange experience, they disconnected their telephones for a while. It seems that the idea was to terrify prominent monks and stop them from voicing their thoughts.

This unpleasant relationship came to an explosive point at the Beruwala tragedy. The political authority in the area was aware that the rally called by temple trustees could lead to a massive clash. Despite requests, from not only Muslim politicians but also some Sinhala ministers to police bosses calling to forbid the rally, their request might have gone unfulfilled due to instructions by the defence secretary. At the Aluthgama rally Ven. Gnanasara carried out the maximum he could. He left the place after pouring petrol in a manner that soaked the area. Later the land was set on fire by others. Not only Muslims but also Sinhaese of the area say that security officers in civilian dress were also among those who rioted. BBS leader Kirama Wimalajothi Thero had to make a special statement where he said that that Ven. Gnanasara’s activity is not in accordance with either Buddhism or monkhood and that he will soon resign from the leadership of the organisation.

Subsequent to that massive destruction, accusations were aimed at the defence secretary and it seems that he instructed Ven. Gnanasara to convene a press briefing to state that the defence secretary has no connection to BBS. This is a secret known by a few journalists which I came to hear. The head of an intelligence service had phoned the head of news in a media institution and asked to cover Ven. Gnanasara’s press conference. As there was no positive response from the journalist, in a matter of few moments, the defence secretary himself has called to demand coverage for Ven. Gnanasara’s press conference. In the press briefing, over and over again, Ven. Gnanasara has been saying that his movement has got nothing to do with Gotabhaya Rajapaksa. This can be counted as a moment when the cat was let out of the bag.

It can be said that Gotabhaya Rajapaksa who attained the status of war hero among the general public by playing a major role in defeating Prabhakaran’s military movement at one historical moment, today can be seen as a spoiler who will derail the country’s way forward.

by Victor Ivan

( July 8, 2014, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian)

“The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.” – Article II, Section 26, Constitution of the Philippines (1987)

DA Rajapaksa became prominent as a key founder of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), along with SWRD Bandaranaike, largely because after their breakaway from the UNP in 1951, with five other MPs, they were the only two who could retain their seats at the 1952 parliamentary elections. SWRD was assassinated in 1959 and DA died in 1967. I had occasion to deliver memorial orations for both of them, for SWRD Bandaranaike in 2004 and DA Rajapaksa in 2010.

There was another reason for the Bandaranaikes or the Rajapaksas to become prominent within the SLFP or its support base. They were political families. Although Mrs. Bandaranaike was not interested in politics initially, she came forward given the crisis within the party after her husband’s assassination. Thereafter, daughter (Chandrika) and son (Anura) also entered politics with somewhat a ‘gender’ balance.

However, from the DA Rajapaksa family, apart from his predecessor brother (DM) and his two sons (George and Lakshman) and one daughter (Nirupama) from George, three sons (Chamal, Mahinda and Basil) have come into politics along with another brother (Gotabhaya) as a clan or a group and dominates the state and the party apparatus today. Most of the arrogant political dynasties are male dominated. The story doesn’t end there. There are two sons from Mahinda and Chamal prominently in politics. This is undoubtedly the most formidable challenge that democracy in Sri Lanka faces today.

SWRD and SLFP

SWRD undoubtedly was the real founder and the visionary of what we know as the SLFP both with its strengths and weaknesses. Nevertheless, there are no indications whatsoever that he anticipated a ‘dynastic tradition’ within the party of his own or others. He himself was a victim of dynastic tendencies in politics when the first Prime Minister DS Senanayake advised the then Governor General, Lord Soulbury, that his son Dudley Senanayake should be named as the PM in an event of his demise, by passing SWRD and several others in seniority and competence.

There are no indications that SWRD considered politics as a family affair. He had never encouraged his wife, Sirimavo Bandaranaike, to come into politics along with him or after. One may consider it as a ‘macho tendency’ that he was usually accused of, but it was a fact. By the time of his assassination, his two children were too young to be drawn into politics and it is difficult to speculate what he would have done if he survived.

This was the same in the case of many of the first generation of SLFP leaders. Even when DM Rajapaksa died in 1945, DA Rajapaksa was reluctant to contest the by-election although he was involved in his elder brother’s political campaigns before. There are no clear indications that even DA Rajapaksa cultivated his sons to enter into politics. Apart from SWRD and DA, another prominent leader of the SLFP movement was DS Goonesekera. He was the person who was elected at the Madampe Conference in 1951 to negotiate with the UNP leader and the PM, DS Senanayake, before they took a final decision to breakaway and to form a new party. Goonesekera held important portfolios both in SWRD’s and Sirimavo Bandaranaike’s governments. He had a large family of ten children but none of them wanted to enter politics and instead they opted for professional careers (five doctors, three teachers, a lawyer and an engineer).

Dynastic Politics

There are of course no hard and fast rules how politician’s children choose or should choose their future careers. There may be natural tendencies for children to follow political paths/causes of their fathers or mothers. Aung San Suu Kyi is one positive example who opted to enter politics at a later age of her life for the sake of the country. Her father was assassinated in 1947 when she was just a toddler. There is no dynastic intention in her decision to enter politics.

Unfortunately ‘dynastic politics’ has not been limited to royal families or ancient kingdoms. It has on and off become a feature even in democratic and quasi-democratic countries and endemic in South Asia among others continents. In America, Kennedys and the Bush family were much famous. More oligarchic dynasties have prevailed in contemporary non-democratic countries such as North Korea, Cuba and former Libya. The obvious inference is that dynasties closely go hand in hand with centralization and/or authoritarianism.

Within South Asia, India has been famous for political dynasties both at the center as well as the states. The most famous has been the Nehru-Gandhi family. This dynasty has produced three Prime Ministers, Nehru, Indira and Rajiv, and still keeps a strong grip on the Indian National Congress Party. At the state levels, there are competing dynasties aiming at succession like Karunanidhis and Ramachandrens in Tamil Nadu or Mishras and Yadavs in Bihar. Nepal also has been famous for a similar phenomenon. The Koirala family similarly had a grip in politics, until everything went in flames recently, producing four Prime Ministers, Krishna Prasad (father) and Matrika, Bishweshwar and Girija as his sons.

Sri Lanka: Shame or Pride?

Sri Lanka has undoubtedly been no better especially in the case of the SLFP. Some consider this as exemplary and ‘take pride’ in Sri Lanka’s relative merits instead of becoming ashamed of. The Bandaranaike clan has produced two Prime Ministers and one President. However, after CBK the leadership was passed on to Mahinda Rajapaksa and not to Anura Bandaranaike. That was the right thing to do, breaking the dynastic tradition at least partially. Let me relate a personal recollection on the matter.

I met Mahinda Rajapaksa in July 2005 at Nuwaraeliya. The occasion was a workshop organized by the Peace Building Project of the Ministry of Constitutional Affairs for the UPFA parliamentarians and provincial council members in the Central Province. We were discussing the forthcoming presidential elections in a personal conversation. He told me “This women (geni) will not give me nominations.” I said, “No, she cannot and she would not. She is very political and she would follow the political rules.”

The relevance of the above discussion is to emphasize the importance of following rules in politics. The most important rule to follow in Sri Lanka at present is the two term limit for the presidency. Although it has been altered by the infamous 18th Amendment, there is no people’s mandate or moral right for the President Rajapaksa to contest again. Its legal position is also not sacrosanct. After two terms, especially in the position of the presidency, any human person would become weary and exhausted. Then others, mostly siblings, rule the roost. That is very clear in MR today. It is better to handover the baton without being too late. Even in parliamentary systems, the tradition is developing for the same person not to continue for more than two terms in the position of the Prime Minister.

It is for the same reason that anyone should not approve or admire CBK coming back again for the presidential competition. She should keep her dignity and integrity intact in retirement from that office. However, she can or may play a different role in politics or public life given the present crisis situation in the country and in the SLFP.
Succession

In terms of succession, the seniority should come first if the competence is assured. Or a democratic vote within a political party could decide on a succession battle on the proviso that such elections are held democratically and without undue influence of the incumbent. This principle should apply both to the SLFP and the UNP and for any other democratic party.

I have already expressed the view before that it would have been better both for the UNP and Ranil Wickremasinghe personally if he had taken the backstage after repeated defeats for the party. It might be too late now. It is always better for democracy, if circulation of leaders in political parties are ensured. It is unfortunate in Sri Lanka that when people come into position they don’t easily leave whether it is a political position or even a simple academic position from my personal experience. They want to hold on to power.

The chasm of dynastic politics again has raised its ugly head within the UNP in a different form. The rift between Ranil and Sajith, as far as I understand, appears to be a resurrection of JR-Premadasa rift of the past. At least that is the way the Sajith Premadasa camp has projected its leadership challenge within the party – as a resurrection of the Premadasa legacy. That may be one reason why Ranil is reluctant to leave the leadership. But what has to be realized by both factions is that the challenge of the Rajapaksa dynasty is much more formidable and fatal to both factions.

One may argue that dynastic politics in the case of Rajapaksas was a later development or a reaction to the Bandaranaike dynasty. Although CBK came to lead the SLFP after some hesitation and even on the promotion MR in 1993/94, during her tenure, the way MR was treated could not be considered amicable. I was partial witness to this ‘discrimination.’ However, that is not a valid reason to turn the tables and establish his own dynasty, more vociferous than the Bandaranaike dynasty, within the party. CBK’s efforts were not dynastic. The frictions between the two were mostly personal and political.

Rajapaksa Dynasty

The present dynastic project of the Rajapaksas seems to have more profound political and other implications. It is a tragedy for the country. Unlike in the past, the Rajapaksa family has established a strong grip on the state apparatus and in the economy. That can be changed only through a rebellion within the SLFP. I am not saying that the regime cannot be defeated electorally. But one element for the equation should come through the SLFP, not necessarily to bring the UNP into power, but to reinstate democracy in the country beyond partisan affiliations.

It may be true that it was first a given factor, a large number of family members being in politics and another brother’s services being required in the defense sector. However, now the family network has become institutionalized and entrenched within the state apparatus and within the party. The failure of the nation is not rooted in its culture, religion or the people, but in the distorted institutions, both state and party. The leaders are primarily responsible. Otherwise why do we call them leaders?

If this is not changed without delay, both within the party/parties and the State, it would be difficult to alter the situation in the future. What might happen is a catastrophe like in Nepal where legitimacy of the governance completely breaks down and people resort into rebellion against the family oligarchy.

One may ask what is wrong in a family dynasty or dynasties in politics. There are tendencies particularly in South Asia to prefer political families by some voters instead of independent individuals at the leadership. Apart from some cultural reasons, families are considered easy to predict and worthy to rely. However, this is largely among the backward voters, some might consider part of ‘political realism.’ The challenges are more formidable to democracy and good governance, people should be educated on by the parties and the free media. On this last point, let me quote an expert/activist on the subject, C. K. Lal (Human Rights Democracy and Governance: Imagine a New South Asia, p. 3) from our own region (Nepal) as the conclusion.

“But what makes dynastic succession dangerous is the tendency of elected hereditary leaders to concentrate political power in their own hands. Since they thrive because of the politics of patronage, centralization of all authority ensues. Constitutional procedures fall by the wayside as invincible leaders begin to perceive themselves as indispensable. Sadly, this gives rise to submissive tendencies among their followers. One of the ways of countering this trend can perhaps be an effective devolution of power at the provincial level and empowerment of local government units at the grass roots.

“How could we not have seen what was coming, until it had arrived in our midst, clanking and smoking?” John Banville (Shroud)

President Mahinda Rajapaksa is furious. Not about the Aluthgama riots; that, in his eyes, was a ‘most minor incident’. He is furious about the peaceful protest (Hartal) against the Aluthgama riots.

Little wonder then that Galagoda-Atte Gnanasara Thera is not only free but was allowed to hold another ‘religious meeting’ in Kandy.
According to President Rajapaksa, murder and mayhem constitute far, far lesser crimes than a peaceful protest: “During the conflict period the LTTE killed people irrelevant of their ethnicity. Certain groups that didn’t dare stage a single hartal campaign during the LTTE period have now started them. Large scale (Maha loku) hartal campaigns are organised for even the most minor incidents.”
Is it any surprise that the police, instead of arresting the criminals of Aluthgama, are hot in pursuit of the organisers of the peaceful Hartal?

In this context, if Minister Vasudeva Nanayakkara succeeds in bringing a law against hate speech, it will be used to silence not the BBS/JHU/Ravana Balaya but to incarcerate those who criticise the hatemongering of Galagoda-Atte Gnanasara et al.

Once, not so long ago, this President justified attacks on Muslims by claiming (entirely apocryphally) that only child rapists have been targeted. This week he dismissed an outbreak of violence which claimed four lives and inflicted a festering wound on the ethno-religious fabric of Sri Lanka as a ‘most minor incident’. Can his government be trusted to discover the truth about Aluthgama and prosecute those responsible?

According to Parliamentarian Mangala Samaraweera, the Aluthgama riot was a concept of Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, implemented by certain military officials. Mr. Samaraweera, given his past affiliations, would know what the Rajapaksas are capable of. And he would not have made such an extremely serious allegation outside parliament unless he had some evidence to show for it. Any government interested in justice, order and its good name would launch an impartial inquiry into such a grave charge. Any society interested in peace and fair-play would demand such an inquiry of its government.

Instead the regime seems to be planning a witch hunt against Mr. Samaraweera. According to police spokesman an investigation might be launched against Mr. Samaraweera under the Official Secret Act for “divulging information regarding national security and information about the security forces” . Is the regime accusing Mr. Samaraweera of revealing state secrets? Wouldn’t such an accusation be tantamount to accepting that Mr. Samaraweera spoke the truth about Aluthgama riots?

If Mr. Samaraweera lied, why not arrest him for slander and other lesser crimes?

If Mr. Samaraweera did not lie, then the ‘great betrayal’ Sri Lanka’s viscerally Orwellian army spokesman was blathering about was committed not by Mr. Samaraweera but by Gotabhaya Rajapaksa and his brothers.

Before Black July, Sri Lanka experienced two minor riots, in 1977 and 1981 (the burning of the Jaffna library). Had Jayewardene regime responded sanely, sensibly and lawfully to these outbreaks, had Sinhala society condemned these outbreaks unequivocally, Black July and many other consequent disasters could have been avoided.

Are we living in a similar interregnum? Is this is the uneasy calm before the next bloody tornado? Will we evade the abyss or plunge into it, singing patriotic songs and waving the Lion and ‘Buddhist’ flags?

Rioters are law-breakers. If the government implements the law, without fear or favour, another, greater, disaster might be avoidable. But the regime is not interested in prosecuting criminals but in persecuting enemies. So UNP provincial councillor, Mujibar Rahaman has been questioned, Watareka Vijitha Thero has been arrested and Mangala Samaraweera might be summoned to the Fourth Four.
Meanwhile the criminals of Aluthgama remain as free as air.

Governments can instigate/encourage riots; but such violence cannot flourish in the absence of societal approbation. In July 1983, the rioters were empowered by the sense that a large component of Sinhala society (if not the majority) approved of what they were doing. Without that oxygen, the fires of Black July would not have blazed for as long as they did.

Lankan Buddhists, lay and ordained, led by the Chief Prelates have to make a decision: who is our Teacher? Is it the Buddha with his message of compassion and non-violence for all living beings? Or is it Bhikku Mahanama, Anagarika Dharmapala and Galagoda-Atte Gnanasara Thera, with their anti-Buddhist justification of violence against ‘unbelievers’?

Are we Buddhists, the followers of the Gautama Buddha? Or are we Mahawamsa-Dharmapala-Gnanasara disciples?

The New War?

In 2008, as the war was grinding towards a victorious conclusion, the principal of a school in Galle ordered the father of a Muslim pupil out of his office for wearing a prayer cap.
That was an early sign of the new disaster which is almost upon us.

Post-war, we Sinhalese should have made a conscious effort to prove to minorities that we are not what we were in 1956, 1972, 1973 and 1983. Instead, under Rajapaksa aegis and intoxicated by the ‘great patriotic victory’, we acted as if there was nothing wrong with 1956, 1972, 1973 and 1983.

To win the war, the Rajapaksas appealed to the fanatic in the Sinhala soldier and the Sinhala civilian. Now to maintain themselves in power they are appealing to the fanatic in Sinhala-Buddhist citizens and monk. The Rajapaksas need enemies and Sinhala-Buddhist supremacists have enemies. The Rajapaksas need a new war, to justify the imposition of a familial autocracy on an imperfect democracy; Sinhala-Buddhists supremacists are never without a handy casus belli.

The Tamils have been taught a lesson; now is the turn of the Muslims.
Someday, the turn of the Christians too will arrive.

Fanatics inhabit a different mental universe, a psychological wasteland in which reason does not exist and any barbarity is permissive in the name of the chosen ‘cause’. That was the logic of Black July. That mindset helped the Tigers to triumph over the more moderate Tamil options. The LTTE in turn helped the Rajapaksas to power.

The moderate Muslim leaders, the ones who believe in democracy and non-violence, are being discredited and are discrediting themselves. Their successors will be neither non-violent nor democratic. Aluthgama would have lent credence to the voices of immoderation in the Muslims community. If a bigger outbreak follows, it will be a death knell for the moderate, non-violent and democratic Muslim. In his/her place will be the Jihadist.

The Rajapaksas may not mind that. The Sinhala-Buddhist fanatics may not mind that.

But is that the future we want?

The allegation that there were 1,000 Jihadists in a mosque in Aluthgama is inane. If there were even a singhel Jihadist he/she would not have just lobbed stones. Do we want Sri Lanka to become a target for real Jihadists out there in the world? Do we want suicide bombers and bombs again, probably on a larger scale?

It is easy to conjure spectres; getting rid of them when the work is done is quite another matter. Before we allow the Rajapaksas and their crazy acolytes to damage Sinhala-Muslim relations beyond the point of recovery, we should ask: Do we really want another war?